omeganuepsilon:neongoats: omeganuepsilon: No Such Agency: Oh look, Americans are still here posting as if they have any understanding of Canadian law.

The law is irrelevent if people disagree with it.

Canadian law isn't irrelevent(sic) because American plebs disagree with it. No matter how special your mommy told you you are.

I misphrased, pardon my not breaking it down to a gradeschool level of reading so you would only be mildly challenged.

If the people are arguing for a specific right(ie in this case, privacy/search&seizure/bare arms[or more generally understandable rights, such as anti-discrimination laws), whether or not Canada allows for them is irrelevant, because people are saying they should allow for those rights.

I want equal rights for women, for example, no matter what country they are in or what the local laws are. They way most get treated in some middle-eastern countries is reprehensible.

The local laws are irrelevant as to our desire for certain places to grow the fark up and attempt to be civilized and fair.

Well unfortunately this isn't some tea party fantasy scenario where the cops are smashing and grabbing all the guns to keep the populace in line, blatantly running over civil rights, etc. I realize that the farkderps are portraying it that way though.

hardinparamedic:al's hat: LordJiro: So instead, these people would prefer their firearms be in the hands of looters?

I would think that if law enforcement has enough resources to go house by house, break in forcibly, search the house, and remove the owners' guns that they have enough resources to prevent almost all looting.

You're absolutely joking, right?

House to house searches are conducted to ensure no threats to life remain. They're not done to protect property.

That wasn't the case here. They didn't break into houses looking for people who might be trapped or need assistance. They broke into empty houses to remove the guns.

Huh? "Oh noes! The cops entered my flooded house, took my improperly secured weapon, noted the address from whence it came, and will hold it for me, high and dry, until I come back and ask for it! IT'S MADNESS! MADNESS!"

Sheesh. The article clearly states that the RCMP inventoried them, secured them, and will be happy to give them back once citizens can return to their homes. Bloody 'ell, what is wrong with you folks?

You might have read about cops in New Orleans who did the same thing during Katrina and how some of those people still don't have their guns back.

If the RCMP is really not up to no good, the will immediately hand over the guns to their owners when they show up to claim them.

omeganuepsilon:Matter of opinion based on conflicting fact and bad internet articles.

There is search&seizure.

A couple guns? No big deal. Not represented as a search, found by happenstance, and a judgement call was made.

But didn't a different officer state significantly more than that? That would hint at a specified search with a ready intent.

Just admit that it's based on your opinion, and your opinion alone that you assert that. If you're willing to do that, then I'm completely good with you saying that. However, the actual reason they were going door to door, as I linked above, was to search for people trapped and bodies in the houses - when they found firearms unsecured in houses they had a duty, under the Canadian law, to secure those firearms until the owners came to claim them. Otherwise, the Canadian authorities would have been liable for anything that happened from that point, and the news would be asking instead 'HOW DID THEY LET THIS HAPPEN!"

PaLarkin:You might have read about cops in New Orleans who did the same thing during Katrina and how some of those people still don't have their guns back.

So how many of those firearms were found abandoned in areas where there was active looting going on, and how many of those firearms haven't been given back to people who have presented evidence that they are the rightful owners?

Because the only other rational response is that everything is a conspiracy with nefarious intent. It's either ONE or the OTHER. No middle ground possible.

omeganuepsilon:No, there are multiple possibilities here, since we are lacking facts and have conflicting information. Depending on what the facts actually are, either could be argued legitimately.

I'm not playing the "well, if this is true then that, but what if" game, OU. I'm doubting the validity or veracity of something that is being repeated verbatim of rags like Free Republic and Breitbart.

hardinparamedic:omeganuepsilon: No, there are multiple possibilities here, since we are lacking facts and have conflicting information. Depending on what the facts actually are, either could be argued legitimately.

I'm not playing the "well, if this is true then that, but what if" game, OU. I'm doubting the validity or veracity of something that is being repeated verbatim of rags like Free Republic and Breitbart.

How about CBC.CA?They were both on the same page that was linked several times above, and not a login-only MSN website.

"When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure," Cpl. Darrin Turnbull told CBC News in an interview.

As I implied above, someone is lying, or the internet, indeed, the CBC is misquoting/wrong.

So how many of those firearms were found abandoned in areas where there was active looting going on, and how many of those firearms haven't been given back to people who have presented evidence that they are the rightful owners?

I don't know how many people in New Orleans went to the cops and claimed they owned guns they didn't. Maybe the RCMP wanted to keep guns away from criminals. Maybe they didn't. If the RCMP's only goal is to secure the guns so criminals didn't get to steal them; the only way to prove this is by giving them back to their owners as soon as they show up to collect them. If the RCMP doesn't hand the guns over to their owners immediately, they will show that they only wanted an excuse to steal peoples' guns.

I'm sure you'd be calm and rational if the cops came and took your Beanie Baby collection.

Yes, but you can't kill 20 kids with beanie babies.

It depends on how hard you throw them.

I suppose that could be true if they contained lead, but you can say the exact same thing about guns.

I dunno about the mythical chicken being farked by republicans, but those poor kids sure have been drug up, stacked up, and stood upon enough times that they have shoe prints in their corpses.

Any way we can convince you to let those kids rest in peace and make a clear, cogent argument that doesn't involve whoring out the emotional pain of their deaths? Or is using every one of them as emotional ammunition all you have left?

The heart of the argument for gun control is that the pain and loss caused by gun violence warrant it. But I can't point to examples because, in addition to being a powerful argument, I'd be a 'whore'. What are you, six?

You are desperate to get people to stop talking about the consequences of largely unregulated availability of guns, because any counter-argument is inadequate. And you know it. You should be desperate.

So for the people who think this is some RCMP conspiracy, let me just get this straight: In the middle of a gigantic unprecedented flood, with tens if not hundreds of thousands of evacuees, and the chaotic logistics nightmare that goes with it, the RCMP thought it would be a great time to use the long gun registry, which no longer exists, to go out and haphazardly confiscate yer gunz, admit to it, and then tell people through CBC and other national new sources where they`re being stored and how they can pick them up.

Just wanted to get that cleared up, thanks.

BTW, it`s you idiots that are going to ruin it for the rest of us law abiding gun owners with an ounce of common sense. Keep it up and your counterparts on the opposite end of the spectrum are going to convice enough people that we really do need to ban semi-autos, just look at all the crazy gun nuts out there!

omeganuepsilon:At a press conference Friday in High River held by provincial and municipal officials, RCMP Insp. Gerrett Woolsey told reporters several hundred guns had been seized as officers inspected every home they could enter over a period of several days.

Unless you have reports of people kicking in doors and windows to get those guns, your quote is not as much proof of your point as proof they were following their standard policy. The officers WERE NOT INSPECTING FOR GUNS TO TAKE, they were inspecting for trapped people or dead bodies as a result of the flooding. The same thing FEMA USAR teams would do during a major disaster. It is not that hard to think to secure a firearm before leaving for an evacuation. You know the shelters are not going to let you in there with one anyway. (Red Cross and FEMA policy strictly prohibits firearms in shelters)

omeganuepsilon:When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure," Cpl. Darrin Turnbull told CBC News in an interview.

As I implied above, someone is lying, or the internet, indeed, the CBC is misquoting/wrong.

So basically, they said the same thing, then? The population of High River's incorporated area, alone is 13,000 people. This isn't a little village they walked into and beat every door down to take your boomsticks.

Man On Pink Corner:Hiro-ACiD: Because it's Canada and if you don't you can lose your gun license. Good enough reason asshat?

No.

I am as pro-gun as it gets, and even I believe that its irresponsible and should even be criminal to; 1) not leave firearms at least minimally secured when they are stored and you are not in control of them, and 2) to refuse to report firearms when they are stolen.

If you want to be a gun owner, fine. Just don't be an idiot one. Doesn't clear you to be a jackass and supply criminals with a clean supply of guns.That's just basic responsibilty - not some horrible oppressive burden, not any restriction on your right to bear arms.

So when they are finally allowed back to their rotting and moldering homes, they're going to have to deal with their doors having been kicked-in by the mounties as well? Did the jack-booted thugs bother to secure the homes behind them after they looted all the guns, or did they just leave the doors flapping in the breeze?

You quoted two people saying the exact same thing in different contexts, then accused them of lying and/or being misrepresented because right wing rags decided to make this an issue of gun registration and confiscation, and misrepresent what happened? Again. Your original assertion was that this was a search and seizure, not a rescue/recovery operation, and that those guns were taken - not from plain sight and in the open - but that the homes were searched specifically for this.

Max Awesome:So when they are finally allowed back to their rotting and moldering homes, they're going to have to deal with their doors having been kicked-in by the mounties as well? Did the jack-booted thugs bother to secure the homes behind them after they looted all the guns, or did they just leave the doors flapping in the breeze?

I can't speak for the Cannokistanis, but I know USAR teams will tape the doors shut if they will not latch/lock, and put crime tape around the entrances after they complete the search. Looters are not very smart, most of the time. They'll take the most direct way in - the front door.

Communism is on the rise in Canada. Every time I open my door and allow customers in my noodle shop, a raging debate about wages erupts into everyone slinging my noodles and I cannot charge one person more than another for excess damages. How ridiculous.

omeganuepsilon:No Such Agency: Oh look, Americans are still here posting as if they have any understanding of Canadian law.

The law is irrelevent if people disagree with it.

That doesn't even make sense. We don't have a right to bear arms up here, but people constantly go on as if we do and the authorities should act accordingly. The Mounties acted in accordance with Canadian law and customs here, they did nothing wrong.

No Such Agency: "More than likely" your mother is currently under my desk gargling my schwanzstucker. Yet I can't feel it, I wonder why?

They don't call you "Tiny Tim" for nothing.

Aww, and I thought it was because of my sick ukelele playing. But I'm right, you were making up things that didn't happen and using that as an argument.

Gdalescrboz:So now my home is considered a non secure place? are my kids next since they apparently dont live in a secure place? I guess when police are free to busy in all willy nilly and claim shiat isn't secure and take it, and blow jobs like you think it's ok, then ya, I guess my home is no longer secure

"Secure" means "locked", you paranoid whackjob.

mikefinch:The police are absolutely allowed to enter your house during an emergency. Any emergency worker can expecially if a forced evacuation is going on. They can arrest your ass just for staying. I'mean -- they dont want to but they do have the ability...

Guns -- even if legally owned -- must be stored properly. They should have the pin taken out or a trigger/bag lock on and be seperate from the ammo. Not a crazy or hard to comply with rule.

Now haveng grown up in the Peace River area i know how most people store their guns... And while most are pretty good about it there are always a few families that leave the rifle on the top shelf of the entryway closet with a box of ammo. Or in the garage with no locks on anything. Its not necessarily dangerous but it gives the cops an excuse to take your shiat.

Also, people here are forgetting that Canada has a surprising amount of gun collectors; if the RCMP inspected a house of a gun collector in High River, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could come out with 20-30 guns that were out on display. You get 5 houses like that (and this being Canada's Texas, 5 houses with 20+ guns is not out of the question) and suddenly you're up into the Hundreds from just a "few houses".

mikefinch:Now haveng grown up in the Peace River area i know how most people store their guns... And while most are pretty good about it there are always a few families that leave the rifle on the top shelf of the entryway closet with a box of ammo. Or in the garage with no locks on anything. Its not necessarily dangerous but it gives the cops an excuse to take your shiat.

I've got family out in the High River area (and other parts of Alberta); every time I hear of a kid shooting another kid in a gun related accident, I have a quick burst of fear that I'm going to have to figure out how to pay for going to the funeral of a second or third cousin.

Xcott:al's hat: That wasn't the case here. They didn't break into houses looking for people who might be trapped or need assistance. They broke into empty houses to remove the guns.

I don't think you understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped: they can't tell if the house is empty until they go in to check.

It's not like a dead body is going to answer the door, or be searchable on Google Maps.

I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

Man On Pink Corner:Question: is there anyone in this thread who didn't grow up in the middle of New York City?

Yeah, I live less than an hour away from the town in question. If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to store it properly. I own guns, and I store them in a safe. If that is too complicated for you, you shouldn't have guns. Idiots should not have guns.

omeganuepsilon:Pussy foot around it as you did, it's still no worse than the backhanded comments you've made to me and others in this, and a wide variety of other threads.

Glass houses and such.

Backhanded comments? I pointed out you were grasping at straws by trying to say two comments, which mean the relatively same thing, are completely different and mean that one person is lying OR the media is misrepresenting it (Implying only two options here). I'm also hesitant to believe ANY story that comes out about guns and government in this day and age, because writers pander to the whargarbling shiatheads who hide in their basement while stockpiling some obscure caliber they think Obummer's gonna come steal from them.

I also pointed out that, according to Canadian Law pointed out by actual Canadian FARKers, had they left firearms in unsecured houses, in plain sight, they would have been responsible for what happened with them afterwords. They were duty bound to secure the firearms until the rightful owners claimed them. Until they start destroying/auctioning them off, and refusing to hand back firearms who's owners have the rightful documentation, this is a non-story. The only reason it even made international news is because the Chicken Littles are looking for something to cry about so they can tell us the sky is falling, and we're ONE STEP AWAY from Nazi Germany.

omeganuepsilon:Voicing a simple suspicion of a deficiency of intellect is an entirely different thing.

hardinparamedic:Backhanded comments? I pointed out you were grasping at straws

That's no different than saying "lying" or "stupid", except it uses more words. You're attempting to tapdance around proprieties so that you can say, "wow, you insulted me, good jorb", a failed attempt at plausible deniability.

I'm pretty sure any emergency official (police, fire department, paramedic) has a duty to secure all unsecure weapons that they come across. The police just happens to be the arm of the government which is responsible for taking custody of those unsecured weapons.

I also believe those chuckleheads who left unsecure firearms in their homes should be charged with keeping an unsecure firearm.

al's hat:I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

Perhaps, then, you don't understand the law. The law says that they have to secure a firearm if it's unsecured.

If they were looking for bodies in a field and found a gun there, they'd have to do the same thing.

Xcott:al's hat: I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

Perhaps, then, you don't understand the law. The law says that they have to secure a firearm if it's unsecured.

If they were looking for bodies in a field and found a gun there, they'd have to do the same thing.

I wonder how many of the unsecured guns were in closets and under beds in a locked coontil the police broke down the door) house. I wouldn't call those guns unsecured until the door was broken down.

al's hat:Xcott: al's hat: That wasn't the case here. They didn't break into houses looking for people who might be trapped or need assistance. They broke into empty houses to remove the guns.

I don't think you understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped: they can't tell if the house is empty until they go in to check.

It's not like a dead body is going to answer the door, or be searchable on Google Maps.

I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

The idea of an empty, now-unlocked-because-someone-smashed-the-door-in house with insecure guns inside is hard to grasp? If the RCMP leave insecure guns in a house with a door that won't lock, they are committing a crime. They have to secure the weapons. They do not have an option here.